[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Mechanism extensions and the GSSAPI
- To: Love <lha@stacken.kth.se>
- Subject: Re: Mechanism extensions and the GSSAPI
- From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@mit.edu>
- Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 13:14:25 -0400
- Cc: krbdev@mit.edu, heimdal-discuss@sics.se, lukeh@padl.com
- In-Reply-To: <20040430141457.GI22519@binky.central.sun.com> (NicolasWilliams's message of "Fri, 30 Apr 2004 09:14:57 -0500")
- References: <20040428201406.02F2D151D5C@konishi-polis.mit.edu><ampt9pswov.fsf@nutcracker.stacken.kth.se><20040430141457.GI22519@binky.central.sun.com>
- Sender: owner-heimdal-discuss@sics.se
- User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.2 (gnu/linux)
>>>>> "Nicolas" == Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com> writes:
Nicolas> On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 10:21:20AM +0200, Love wrote:
Love> I though about this some time ago. I think you are missing
Love> two things if this api should go forward; ability list all
Love> options, options are specified oid.
Nicolas> Agreed.
I think I disagree. I'd rather the extension be specified at the shim
layer not at the ioctl layer. So the operation code is an internal
matter for the implementation. Thus I see no reason for it to be an
oid.